<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Fertilizing a field in danger of being burned over
Review: I will confess to having read William's book only once. It deserves at least a second reading. His careful and critical attention to all the texts of the Gnostic tradition requires sustained attention. His point of view, however, is very welcome. Gnosticism has been rather too easily straight-jacketed into a monolithic & dogmatic form: elitist, dualist, either puritanical or libertine, world-hating and earth-hating. On the other hand, it has been romanticized by the hermeneutics of victimization as a feminist harbor in a sea of patriarchy. What Williams concludes is that the common thread among the "Gnostics falsely so-called" (pace Irenaeus) is "biblical demiurgism". This means first, a deep attachment to the biblical narrative and second, a deep dissatisfaction with the biblical deity. The use of myth, imagination, subversive re-reading of texts and the primacy of experience are common, too, as ways of retaining the story and transcending the deity. Gnosticism has too often served for orthodoxy the role that Modernism played for early 20th Century Catholicism; it was given far more ideological coherence & unity of purpose than really existed. I am a great admirer of Gnostic tradition, but the despisal of matter and the physical creation always stuck in my craw. The sin of Balaam: beating the donkey which saves you from the the avenging angel you can't see. Anyway, this book enables me to inhabit that tradition more integrally, being myself a "biblical demiurgist". It encourages a more respectful reading of the texts, without readymade lenses. And while I'm at it, despite Christian assertions of the goodness of creation and its enshrinement in the sacramental system, Christian practice --along with the practice of many religions-- performs a functional equivalent of "Gnosticism" in demonizing matter as the sinful flesh...forgetting that in the Story, it was a proud and beautiful angel who engineered the fall of the universe. I'll read this book again with more care and I encourage anyone with an interest in the subject and some familiarity with the tradition to do so, too. It did not erase the Gnostic tradition for me, but opened it up. Great work, Professor Williams. Thanks.
Rating: 
Summary: Gnosticism: far from the only dubious category
Review: In _Rethinking "Gnosticism"_ Michael Allen Williams offer a formidable challenge to those who wish to continue using the term "gnosticism." There are two proposals that Williams asks his readers to consider. One is to rethink one's characterizations of gnosticism. The second is to replace "gnosticism" as a category altogether._Rethinking_ divides fairly neatly into three parts. The first two chapters are Williams' critique of gnosticism as a category. The next six chapters discuss gnostic exegesis and the term used to describe gnosticism. herein lies the bulk of Williams' argument. In the last two chapters Williams discusses the history and legacy of gnosticism. One would expect Williams to propose an alternative term to gnosticism and, in fact, he does: biblical demiurgical traditions. What are the advantages of the new term? Williams argues that his term would be specific and easy to distinguish, a modern construct, and not burdened by cliches of the past. In his conclusion, Williams mentions a 1978 paper given by Dr Morton Smith in which the latter argued against the
"appropriateness of this category." At the end of Smith's paper, Williams notes that Smith had resigned himself to the fact that "gnosticism" had become a "brand name with a secure market." In response Williams wonders whether the market is not softer than it once was. Perhaps it is and probably it is not. One need only read the titles of new books to see the answer. At the same time there is another matter to be considered: does Williams' argument merit the dismantling of the category? I think not. Gnosticism is not the only term which has floating parameters. For example consider the term "Mesoamerica." The term was adopted by an anthropologist named Paul Kirchhoff to describe the area between southern Mexico and the central American countries and the peoples who lived there. Although there is interaction between the various peoples who lived in this area, there is also a large amount of differences. The term also sets these peoples in contradistinction to other peoples who shared many cultural similarities but who lived outside the proscribed geographical area. I think one would do well to agree with William that
"gnosticism" is a dubious category, but it is far from being the only one.
Rating:
Summary: Gnosticism: far from the only dubious category
Review: In _Rethinking "Gnosticism"_ Michael Allen Williams offer a formidable challenge to those who wish to continue using the term "gnosticism." There are two proposals that Williams asks his readers to consider. One is to rethink one's characterizations of gnosticism. The second is to replace "gnosticism" as a category altogether. _Rethinking_ divides fairly neatly into three parts. The first two chapters are Williams' critique of gnosticism as a category. The next six chapters discuss gnostic exegesis and the term used to describe gnosticism. herein lies the bulk of Williams' argument. In the last two chapters Williams discusses the history and legacy of gnosticism. One would expect Williams to propose an alternative term to gnosticism and, in fact, he does: biblical demiurgical traditions. What are the advantages of the new term? Williams argues that his term would be specific and easy to distinguish, a modern construct, and not burdened by cliches of the past. In his conclusion, Williams mentions a 1978 paper given by Dr Morton Smith in which the latter argued against the
"appropriateness of this category." At the end of Smith's paper, Williams notes that Smith had resigned himself to the fact that "gnosticism" had become a "brand name with a secure market." In response Williams wonders whether the market is not softer than it once was. Perhaps it is and probably it is not. One need only read the titles of new books to see the answer. At the same time there is another matter to be considered: does Williams' argument merit the dismantling of the category? I think not. Gnosticism is not the only term which has floating parameters. For example consider the term "Mesoamerica." The term was adopted by an anthropologist named Paul Kirchhoff to describe the area between southern Mexico and the central American countries and the peoples who lived there. Although there is interaction between the various peoples who lived in this area, there is also a large amount of differences. The term also sets these peoples in contradistinction to other peoples who shared many cultural similarities but who lived outside the proscribed geographical area. I think one would do well to agree with William that
"gnosticism" is a dubious category, but it is far from being the only one.
Rating: 
Summary: A futile effort
Review: What absolute rot! Diversity is not an argument for abolishing a phenomenon and a category.
<< 1 >>
| 
